JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, M. K. GUPTA ( 1 ) IN this application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, the applicants have prayed for an order quashing the seizure of files and documents made by respondent No. 2 at the applicants' factory premises on March 7, 1997. ( 2 ) THE case of the applicants is that applicant No. 1 is a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956. Applicant No. 2 is the vice-president and company secretary of applicant No. 1. The applicant-company is a manufacturer of carbonless paper, continuous computer form and other allied products having its factory situated at Kamdevpur, 24-Parganas (North ). The applicant-company is registered under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (in short, "the 1941 Act" ). Since its inception in 1989, the applicant had been incurring heavy losses and the company became a sick company during the year 1991. In February 1993, the applicant-company had made a reference to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short, "the BIFR") under Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (in short, "the SICA Act" ). By a letter dated September 19, 1995, the BIFR informed the chairman of the applicant-company that the reference made by the company had been registered as Case No. 69 of 1995. By an order dated November 10, 1995, the BIFR appointed the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India (in short, "the IRBI") as an operating agency for a feasibility study and to examine the viability and submit a study report of the company. The BIFR declared, by the same order, the applicant-company as a sick company under the provisions of Section S (1) (o) of the SICA Act. In August, 1996, the Government of West Bengal in the Industrial Reconstruction Department expressed their views regarding the reliefs/concessions to be given to the applicant-company on behalf of the State Government on the draft rehabilitation scheme. One of the proposals expressed by the Government of West Bengal, in the Industrial Reconstruction Department, was that only arrear sales tax dues were considerable to be converted into a loan carrying interest at 8. 75 per cent. per annum with a rebate at 2 per cent. per annum for timely repayment. One of the proposals expressed by the Government of West Bengal, in the Industrial Reconstruction Department, was that only arrear sales tax dues were considerable to be converted into a loan carrying interest at 8. 75 per cent. per annum with a rebate at 2 per cent. per annum for timely repayment. This proposal of the Government of West Bengal has been recorded in the minutes of the meeting held on August 12, 1996, at the office of the IRBI. The applicant addressed a letter to respondent No. 2 on October 5, 1996, stating that applicant No. 1 had made a reference to the BIFR which has been registered as a sick industrial company with BIFR as Case No. 69 of 1995. It was also mentioned that IRBI had been appointed as the operating agency by the BIFR for feasibility study. The proposal of the Government of West Bengal in Industrial Reconstruction Department contained in their letter dated August 9, 1996, was also mentioned in the communication. Applicant No. 1 requested respondent No. 2 to issue the assessment order against the demand notices for the year ending March 31, 1994, and to hand over the same to the representative of the applicant. ( 3 ) ON or about December 30, 1996, applicant No. 1 received memo No. 10486 issued by respondent No. 2 in connection with the default made by the applicant with regard to the submission of returns. Applicant was directed to appear before respondent No. 2 by January 10, 1997, failing which, it was informed, the matter would be decided ex parte and penal action would be taken against the applicants. The applicant duly appeared before respondent No. 2 and submitted that in a meeting with the Government of West Bengal in the Industrial Reconstruction Department it has been proposed that arrear sales tax dues would be converted into loan carrying an interest, This was reiterated in writing by a letter dated January 11, 1997, addressed to respondent No. 2. The applicants requested respondent No. 2 to consider the case as a special one and not to take any further official action for the interest of the employees. The applicants requested respondent No. 2 to consider the case as a special one and not to take any further official action for the interest of the employees. It is also to be noted that in a joint meeting organized by the Government of West Bengal on the January 10, 1997, under the directive of the BIFR it was further confirmed by the Government of West Bengal that the applicant is a sick unit and is entitled to the reliefs and concessions given by the Government of West Bengal. ( 4 ) ON March 7, 1997, at about 12. 30 p. m. respondent No. 2 visited the factory of applicant No. 1 and allegedly started making an indiscriminate search without assigning any reason whatsoever. Respondents gathered all the books of account and documents of the applicant and seized twenty-eight files and prepared a seizure receipt but refused to hand over the same to the applicants and asked the applicant to visit the office of respondent No. 2 on March 8. A representative of the applicant visited the office of respondent No. 2 accordingly and was informed by respondent No. 2 that in the event of the applicant depositing an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs, the respondents would withdraw and/or cancel the said seizure and would also return the files and documents of the applicants. On the applicant's refusal to deposit the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs, respondent No. 2 granted a seizure receipt dated as on March 7, 1997. ( 5 ) THE applicants have approached the Tribunal being aggrieved by the seizure of the books of account and documents in spite of the fact that it has been declared as a sick industrial company by the BIFR which is entitled to get protection under Section 22 (1) of the SICA Act. ( 6 ) THE case of the respondents, as available from their affidavit-in-oppo-sition, is that applicant No, 1 changed its address from 6a, Middleton Street, Calcutta-1, to Village and Post : Kamdevpur, 24 Parganas (North) in the year 1991. No head office or branch office in West Bengal was declared. The applicant has two branch offices, one at Bombay and the other at New Delhi. The address as declared by applicant No. 1 in the instant application was not at all intimated to the assessing authority as required under the 1941 Act as also the 1994 Act. No head office or branch office in West Bengal was declared. The applicant has two branch offices, one at Bombay and the other at New Delhi. The address as declared by applicant No. 1 in the instant application was not at all intimated to the assessing authority as required under the 1941 Act as also the 1994 Act. While transferring the file from Park Street Charge to Barasat Charge, the applicant had informed the concerned authority by their letter dated July 28, 1987, that both factory and accounts office are at the same place at Kamdevpur. Hence, the contention of the applicant that their factory only is at Kamdevpur is misleading. ( 7 ) IT is submitted that as the applicant is a habitual defaulter of tax since November 1, 1995, the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Barasat charge along with the inspector of the same charge visited the applicant's place of business to cause an enquiry regarding the tax status of the applicant. They met there one A. K. Ghosh, manager, finance and accounts, who was requested to produce the books of account and other relevant records and documents pertaining to the business of the applicant. Shri Ghosh produced the books of account and relevant records and documents. On examination of the books of account, it appeared that the applicant did not pay taxes and though he collected huge amount of sales tax from the parties, he held it since November 1, 1995. Further, while examining a bunch of gate passes drawn in plain paper which were produced by Shri Ghosh, it was revealed that the applicant was in the habit of despatching the goods by way of sale by drawing gate passes on plain papers without issuing proper gate passes. On being asked to explain the same, with reference to the books of account, Shri Ghosh failed to explain the matter. This failure on the part of the authorised representative of the applicant to explain the point, led the Assistant Commissioner to form a bona fide suspicion that the applicant was evading payment of tax. Hence, some books of account and documents were seized on that date as per provision of law for further examination of the same. The allegation of an indiscriminate search without assigning any reason is denied. The applicant was granted a copy of the seizure receipt which was duly signed by the authorised representative. Hence, some books of account and documents were seized on that date as per provision of law for further examination of the same. The allegation of an indiscriminate search without assigning any reason is denied. The applicant was granted a copy of the seizure receipt which was duly signed by the authorised representative. He also put his signature while acknowledging receipt of the same. The allegation to the contrary is denied. It is further submitted that the respondent never informed the applicant that in the event the applicant made a deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs, the seizure receipt would be cancelled and books of account would be released. From the report drawn by the inspector prior to the said seizure, it would be clear that the respondents had sufficient reason to believe that the applicant had been attempting to evade payment of tax. The reasons in the form of a report in writing were recorded prior to the seizure and the said report was duly signed by the authorised representative. The seizure receipt was drawn in accordance with law and bore the signature of two witnesses who were stated to be employees of the applicant and were present during the seizure. It is further submitted that the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994, is an independent Act and so the provisions of Section 22 of the SICA Act are not applicable in the instant case and also has no bearing on the actions of respondent No. 2. It is further averred that issuance of memo No. 10486, dated December 30, 1996, and the seizure of books of account dated March 7, 1997, are as per provisions of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994, and are legal and the provisions of the SICA Act have no jurisdiction to prohibit the respondent from such action for recovery of arrear sales tax dues and prevention of evasion of tax. It is further submitted that Section 22 of the SICA Act has no application in the instant case of the applicant. The respondent-authorities, it is submitted, are not restrained from realizing any money from the applicant which has been collected from the public as tax and retained for a long time without depositing the same into the Government coffer. It is further submitted that Section 22 of the SICA Act has no application in the instant case of the applicant. The respondent-authorities, it is submitted, are not restrained from realizing any money from the applicant which has been collected from the public as tax and retained for a long time without depositing the same into the Government coffer. ( 8 ) IN their affidavit-in-reply, the applicants have generally reiterated their earlier case and have denied that the applicant is a habitual defaulter of tax since November 1, 1995. It is denied that the applicant was in the habit of despatching the goods by way of sale by drawing gate passes in plain paper without issuing proper gate passes. During enquiry the applicants had clarified that the gate passes in plain paper were issued by the applicant for carrying out job works like printing, perforation, etc. , on behalf of the organisations who placed their orders on the applicant regularly. The said gate passes were not for despatching the goods by way of sales. It is further submitted that the applicants had paid the sales tax regularly till the year 1995. It is submitted that the respondent-authorities had forced the applicant to sign on a blank form which they carried with them and refused to grant a valid seizure receipt to the applicant. It is alleged that this is in line with the practice of the respondent-authorities, who reportedly forced the applicants to sign on blank forms. Section 22 of the SICA Act specifically provides for suspension of legal proceedings, contracts in respect of an industrial company and there is definitely an embargo against any distress action and recovery of arrears of sales tax is also covered under Section 22 (1) of the said Act as has been held by the Supreme Court. As such the actions of the respondents in issuing memo No. 10486, dated December 30, 1996, and also the seizure effected on March 7, 1997, without the prior consent of the Board is illegal. ( 9 ) M. L. Bhattacharjee, learned advocate for the applicants, argued that the seizure was invalid because the unit had been declared to be a sick unit under the SICA Act. ( 9 ) M. L. Bhattacharjee, learned advocate for the applicants, argued that the seizure was invalid because the unit had been declared to be a sick unit under the SICA Act. Under Section 22 of the SICA Act, when an inquiry under Section 16 is pending in respect of an industrial company or when any scheme referred to under Section 17 is under preparation or consideration, no proceedings for execution, distress or the like against any of the properties of the industrial company lie or can be proceeded with further except with the consent of the Board. In this connection, he referred to the judgments in the cases of Gram Panchayat v. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. MANU/sc/0188/1990 ; Reliance Ispat Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1993] 91 STC 521 (MP) and Himalaya Rubber Products Ltd. v. Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction MANU/wb/0085/1991. Mr. Bhattacharjee argued that memo No. 10486, dated December 30, 1996, issued by respondent No. 2 could not be issued under the provisions of Section 22 of the SICA Act. He also submitted that the seizure of files and documents made by respondent No. 2 at the applicant's factory premises on March 7, 1997, was also in the nature of a proceeding for execution, distress or the like against the books of account and files of the applicant which are undeniably properties of the industrial company. Since the company has been declared to be a sick industrial unit such coercive action on the part of the applicants was without jurisdiction and was hence illegal. ( 10 ) MR. Bhattacharjee also argued that the seizure did not take place after due application of mind. There was no reason on the part of the authorities to believe that there was an attempted evasion of tax by the dealer. Even the report drawn up by the seizing officers, allegedly prior to seizure, shows total lack of application of mind. From the report it would be seen that the inspecting staff found from the books of account which were produced that the dealer had failed to pay taxes from November 1, 1995. Failure to pay taxes, he argued, could not be a valid ground for a suspicion that the dealer attempted to evade taxes. From the report it would be seen that the inspecting staff found from the books of account which were produced that the dealer had failed to pay taxes from November 1, 1995. Failure to pay taxes, he argued, could not be a valid ground for a suspicion that the dealer attempted to evade taxes. Secondly, there is a reference to a bunch of gate passes in plain paper and it is mentioned in the report that such bunch of gate passes indicate that the dealer is selling goods regularly but such gate passes could not be allegedly explained. Thereafter, the inspecting team has recorded that non-explanation of the said gate passes led them to search and seize some documents from the custody of the representative. Mr. Bhattacharjee stated that there is no recording of any suspicion in the report, The inspecting staff have not recorded anywhere that they suspect any attempt at evasion of taxes on the part of the dealer. Non-explanation of some gate passes and non-payment of sales tax dues with effect from November 1, 1995, cannot be stated to be reasonable ground for conducting a seizure of books of account under Section 66 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. Mr. Bhattacharjee further argued that there were no witnesses to the seizure as would be clear from the copy of the seizure list which was handed over to the representative of the dealer. Since witnesses were not present, the seizure is invalid because the provisions of Rule 207 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995, were not complied with. ( 11 ) MR. Bhattacharjee also argued that Section 66 of the 1994 Act under which the seizure of the books of account has been effected is meant for the purpose of collection of tax and hence any seizure of the books of account under Section 66 comes within the mischief of distress which is referred to in Section 22 of the SICA Act. He also argued that properties of siek industrial companies cannot be seized and there is no doubt that books of account of a company are properties of the company. He further argued that the gate passes referred to in the seizure report were not documents of sale at all. The applicants obtained the services of local firms for the purpose of printing the stationery manufactured by the applicant. He further argued that the gate passes referred to in the seizure report were not documents of sale at all. The applicants obtained the services of local firms for the purpose of printing the stationery manufactured by the applicant. These gate passes merely show that the applicant had sent their products to outside firms for job work relating to numbering, etc. , and they were despatched not by way of sales. He handed over, in the course of the hearing, a few of such gate passes and also some forms where the job numbers and description of job covered by such gate passes were referred to. It would be seen, he argued, that in these despatch documents there was no reference to any sale price ; only the quantity of the material sent out and the description of the jobs (e. g. , for numbering of Overnites Air Way bill numbering from 7800001-7900000) was mentioned. If these two are taken together, there would be no doubt that these despatches were for the purpose of job works like printing, etc. , on stationery materials manufactured by the unit and hence use of these plain paper gate passes could not be a cause of any suspicion whatsoever. ( 12 ) M. C. Mukhopadhyay, learned State representative, submitted that Mr. Bhattacharjee has questioned the validity of the seizure as being contrary to the provisions of Section 22 of the SICA Act but, Mr. Mukhopadhyay argued, mere seizure of books of account does not result in distress. Seizure was for the purpose of examining the accounts of the dealer in detail because there were doubts about the dealer evading sales tax. On the basis of such seizure the revenue authorities would be in a position to satisfy themselves whether there has been any attempt at evasion of tax and about the amount of tax due from the dealer. Such seizure for the purpose of quantification and estimation cannot be considered to be in the nature of distress referred to under Section 22 of the SICA Act. Such seizure for the purpose of quantification and estimation cannot be considered to be in the nature of distress referred to under Section 22 of the SICA Act. If any coercive measures are attempted to realize sales tax dues found to be due from the dealer such coercive actions may be hit by the provisions of Section 22 of the SICA Act but mere attempt at quantification of the sales tax dues of the dealer, which is the purpose for which the books of account were seized, cannot amount to distress as referred to in Section 22 of the SICA Act. ( 13 ) REGARDING the reasons for the seizure, Mr. Mukhopadhya submitted that the fact that the applicants had not paid their sales taxes was a piece of information that by itself may not lead to a belief regarding attempt at evasion of taxes but it cannot be said that this piece of information has no relevance at all regarding the bona fides of the dealer. Apart from that when gate passes were detected and it was found that the applicant was in the habit of despatching the goods by way of sale by means of drawing gate passes without issuing proper and normal gate passes and when the issue of such gate passes could not be explained by the applicant's representative, the inspecting staff had formed a suspicion that the appli-cant was evading payment of tax. It cannot be said that such suspicion was an unreasonable or perverse one. Sufficiency of the materials could not be looked into by the Tribunal. The Tribunal could interfere only if there was no material on the basis of which such suspicion could be generated or if the material had been of such a nature that on that basis a reasonable person could not have formed any suspicion whatsoever. In the instant case that was not the situation. Regarding the absence of witnesses, Mr, Mukhopadhyay stated that the submission of the applicant is totally baseless. The applicant has alleged that there were no witnesses to the seizure. It would be evident from the seizure receipt that the said seizure was made in the presence of two witnesses and the two witnesses were employees of the applicant. Regarding the absence of witnesses, Mr, Mukhopadhyay stated that the submission of the applicant is totally baseless. The applicant has alleged that there were no witnesses to the seizure. It would be evident from the seizure receipt that the said seizure was made in the presence of two witnesses and the two witnesses were employees of the applicant. Even if the copy of the seizure receipt handed over to the applicant's representative did not contain the signature of the witnesses, the applicant must have been aware of the presence of the two witnesses because the applicant has signed on the seizure list which bears the signature of the two witnesses to acknowledge receipt of a copy of the same. Secondly, the applicant could not have been unaware of the fact that two of its employees were present during the seizure and had signed on the seizure receipt. The allegation of the applicant, therefore, was totally baseless. ( 14 ) THE applicant has urged that the applicant-company is a sick industrial company under the SICA Act and is, therefore, entitled to the protection offered by Section 22 of the SICA Act. They have cited the cases of Gram Panchauat v. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. MANU/sc/0188/1990; Reliance Ispat Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1993] 77 Comp Cas 381 ; [1993] 91 STC 521 (MP) and Himalaya Rubber Products Ltd. v. Boatdfor Industrial and Financial Reconstruction MANU/wb/0085/1991 in this connection. However, on going through these judgments, it is found that those judgments dealt with facts different from those of the present case. In the case of Gram Panchayat v. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. MANU/sc/0188/1990, the Gram Panchayat initiated proceedings under Section 129 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, for recovery of property tax amounting to Rs. 9,47,539 and other amounts due from the company. It was held that no proceedings for execution, distress or the like against any of the properties of the company could lie except with the consent of the Board. 9,47,539 and other amounts due from the company. It was held that no proceedings for execution, distress or the like against any of the properties of the company could lie except with the consent of the Board. In the case of Reliance Ispat Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1993] 77 Comp Cas 381 ; [1993] 91 STC 521 (MP) demand notices for sales tax dues of the company which was declared sick within the meaning of Section 3 (1) (o) of the SICA Act, were served on the company under Section 146 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, warning that in default of payment, coercive processes of recovery would be adopted, and garnishee notices under Section 23 (1) of the M. P, General Sales Tax Act, 1958, were served on various banks prohibiting them from making any payments to the company. It was held that the notices in question, both under the M. P. Land Revenue Code containing a threat of coercive action, and under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act to the banks were clearly covered by the term "proceeding for execution, distress or the like against any of the properties of the industrial company" used in Section 22 (1) of the Act and, therefore, deserve to be quashed. Again, in the case of Himalaya Rubber Products Ltd. v. Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction MANU/wb/0085/1991, the applicant-company had been declared to be a sick industrial company under the provisions of the SICA Act. On the ground of the company's failure to pay its arrears of sales tax, the sales tax authorities refused, in terms of Rule 27aa of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, to issue to it declaration form "c" under the Central Sales Tax Act. In that case, the High Court held that sales tax declaration forms had become a necessary adjunct without which a trader could not carry on competitive business. The object of the refusal of the authority to issue the forms was clearly a coercive measure to cover the sales tax arrears due from the applicant-company. In that case, the High Court held that sales tax declaration forms had become a necessary adjunct without which a trader could not carry on competitive business. The object of the refusal of the authority to issue the forms was clearly a coercive measure to cover the sales tax arrears due from the applicant-company. Moreover, withholding of declaration forms under Rule 27aa (2) (c) of the 1941 Rules is an alternative mode of recovery of tax and hence, it was held, for the purposes of Section 22 (1) of the 1985 Act withholding of the sales tax declaration form for failure to pay arrears of sales tax was a process similar to execution and distress and the sales tax authorities were not entitled to withhold the forms without the consent of the BIFR. It would be seen that in all these cases the actions initiated were coercive actions to recover dues from the sick companies. The instant case is quite different in that the action is not an action to recover monies due. The learned advocate for the applicant has argued that the books of account of the company are properties of the company and this seizure amounts to retention of the goods of the company for recovering monies due. ( 15 ) THE scope of Section 22 of the SICA Act has been considered in detail by the Supreme Court in Deputy Commercial Tax Officer v. Corromandal Pharmaceuticals [1997] 89 Comp Cas 1 (SC ). After examining the different provisions of the SICA Act the Supreme Court observed that under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, it is in the implementation of the scheme sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction that various preventive, remedial or other measures are designed i'or the sick industrial company. In order to sec that the scheme is successfully implemented and no impediment is caused for the successful carrying out of the scheme, the Board is enabled to have a say when steps for recovery of an amount or other coercive proceedings are taken against the sick industrial company which, during the relevant time, acts under the guidance/control or supervision of the Board. In order to safeguard such state of affairs, an embargo is placed under Section 22 of the SICA Act against any step for execution, distress or the like or other similar proceedings against the company without the consent of the Board or, as the case may be, the appellate authority. Though the language of Section 22 is wide, in the totality of the circumstances, the Supreme Court held, the safeguard is only against impediment that is likely to be caused in the implementation of the scheme. Therefore, only the liability or amounts covered by the scheme will be taken in by Section 22, Though the language of Section 22 is of wide import regarding suspension of legal proceedings from the moment an inquiry is started under the Act till after the implementation of the scheme or the disposal of an appeal under Section 25, the bar or embargo envisaged by Section 22 (1) can apply only to such of those dues as were reckoned or included in the sanctioned scheme and the section should be so understood or read down. ( 16 ) FROM the above observations of the Supreme Court, it would be clear that only such action as goes against the implementation of the scheme for revival of the sick industrial company is prohibited by the embargo envisaged by Section 22 (1) of the SICA Act. The case of seizure of the books of account of the company, cannot come into this category. If monies due to a company are seized or withheld or productive assets of the company are sought to be seized, there is no doubt that the operational functioning of the industrial company is likely to be affected jeopardising the recovery of the sick industrial company, but such is not the case when books of account of the company are seized. It would be difficult to hold that seizure of the books of account of the company will result in obstructing the revival of the sick industrial company. It is seen from the correspondence annexed with the application that in the different proposals which were under examination by the BIFR for the revival of the company there was a suggestion by the Government of West Bengal in the Industrial Reconstruction Department that arrear sales tax dues could be converted into a loan carrying interest at 8. 75 per cent. 75 per cent. per annum with a rebate at 2 per cent. per annum for timely repayment. It would be seen that the company itself wanted the assessment order for the year ending March 31, 1994. It would, therefore, be clear that the quantum of arrear sales tax dues of the company would form an integral part of the revival package and under such circumstances any attempt at quantifying the arrear sales tax dues of the company cannot be objected to. If in the course of such quantification, there is any suspicion in the mind of the revenue authorities that there has been an attempt at evading sales tax dues then their attempt at quantifying the correct amount of arrear sales tax dues cannot be considered to be an act akin to distress or similar measures. Hence, we are of the opinion that seizure of books of account of the company, under the circumstances of the case, cannot be considered to be a proceeding for execution, distress or the like against any of the properties of the industrial company. ( 17 ) MR. Bhattacharjee had earlier submitted that there were no witnesses to the seizure and, therefore, the seizure is invalid due to non-compliance with Rule 207 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995. From the documents produced before us as well as from the argumenls made before us, we are satisfied that in spite of the applicant's earlier assertion, the seizure was witnessed by two of their own employees as would be evident from the copy of the original seizure receipt where the signature of the two witnesses as well as the signature of the authorised representative of the company indicating receipt of the seizure receipt is clearly indicated. Hence, this contention of the applicant cannot be accepted. ( 18 ) FROM the material placed before us there is no reason to suspect that the reasons were not recorded prior to the seizure, as alleged by the applicant. The learned advocate for the applicant contended that there were no reasons for seizure and the reasons which have been recorded by the officers do not contain any grounds which could have led them to suspect evasion of sales tax. The learned advocate for the applicant contended that there were no reasons for seizure and the reasons which have been recorded by the officers do not contain any grounds which could have led them to suspect evasion of sales tax. It is true that the seizing officers have not used the words mentioned in Section 66 in their report but merely because the phrases used in Section 66 of the 1994 Act have not been reproduced by the officers it cannot be held that they did not suspect any evasion of tax on the part of the applicant-company. The report has to be read in its entirety and if it is clear from the report that the officers did observe and record circumstances which could reasonably give rise to a suspicion that the dealer was attempting to evade payment of taxes, then it would not be appropriate to hold that they did not have any suspicion merely because it has not been mentioned cate-gorically in the same language as occurs in Section 66. On a perusal of the recorded reasons it will be seen that the seizing officers had recorded as follows : "from the books of account produced, it appears that the dealer has failed to pay taxes from November 1, 1995. A bunch of gate passes in plain paper is produced which indicates that the dealer is selling goods. . . The non-explanation of the said gate passes leads us to search and seize some documents from the custody of the above representative. Seizure under Section 66 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994, is made separately. " ( 19 ) FROM the record quoted above, it will be seen that the seizing officers had seen during their examination a bunch of gate passes in plain paper which indicated that the dealer was selling goods. Apparently, there was no explanation of the said gate passes and this led them to search and seize some documents from the custody of the authorised representative. It is also mentioned in the report that seizure under Section 66 of the 1994 Act is made separately. Apparently, there was no explanation of the said gate passes and this led them to search and seize some documents from the custody of the authorised representative. It is also mentioned in the report that seizure under Section 66 of the 1994 Act is made separately. This clearly indicates, although it is not mentioned in so many words, that the state of mind appropriate for a seizure under Section 66 of the 1994 Act (relating to attempt to evade tax) had been occasioned by the bunch of gate passes in plain paper examined by them. The learned advocate for the applicant has sought to explain that this bunch of gate passes in plain paper relates to despatches to other companies for the purposes of job work relating to printing, numbering, etc. , on stationery materials manufactured by the applicant-company. He has produced a few gate passes and has also submitted printed letterheads of the company where such despatches had been recorded. It is difficult to say, from a perusal of these records, that the suspicion of the seizing party regarding these documents being connected to sale of material was a perverse or improbable one. Even the printed letterheads produced by the learned advocate before us show that something has been sold to a company called "business Forms Ltd. ". In the documents submitted to us the letterheads contained the headings "customer Order Number" "sales Order Number", etc. The sales order number and challan number are also filled in. The job number also is indicated. If the seizing authorities had a suspicion, on the basis of these types of documents, that there were clandestine sales referred to in these cases, it cannot be said that such suspicion would have been totally perverse or baseless. Such gate passes and supporting documents, admittedly, were not reflected in the books of account relating to sales because, according to the applicant, these were not sales at all. Therefore, we cannot hold that such suspicion was without any basis and was a perverse one. Hence, the seizure of the books of account is held to bo valid. Such gate passes and supporting documents, admittedly, were not reflected in the books of account relating to sales because, according to the applicant, these were not sales at all. Therefore, we cannot hold that such suspicion was without any basis and was a perverse one. Hence, the seizure of the books of account is held to bo valid. ( 20 ) HOWEVER, when we come to memo No. 10486, dated December 30, 1996, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Barasat charge, we find that the Assistant Commissioner informed the company that they had defaulted in the matter of submission of returns along with receipted copies of challans since November 1, 1995, which is a cognizable offence with punishment for imprisonment which may extend to six months or fine or both. They have been directed to show cause why procedure for prosecution should not be adopted for the offence committed by the company as provided in the law and it has also been indicated that in the case of failure to comply with this order, the matter would be decided ex parte. There is no doubt that this letter threatening the company with prosecution for the offence of non-submission of returns along with receipted copies of challans clearly comes within the mischief of proceedings "for execution, distress or the like" against the company and the objective of such a memo, is to realize taxes under threat and, therefore, this memo must be held to be illegal because of the immunity available to the company as a result of its being declared a sick company under the SICA Act. ( 21 ) THE application is, therefore, allowed in part. Memo No. 10486, dated December 30, 1996, of the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Barasat charge to the applicant-company is quashed. The seizure of the documents and books of account effected on March 7, 1997, from the factory of the applicant-company is held to be valid.